Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Do we need a new "PQgetXLogData" function at all? �Seems like you could
>> shove the data through the COPY protocol and not have to touch libpq
>> at all, rather than duplicating a nontrivial amount of code there.
> Yeah, I also think that all data (the WAL data itself, its LSN and
> the flag bits) which the "PQgetXLogData" handles could be shoved
> through the COPY protocol. But, outside libpq, it's somewhat messy
> to extract the LSN and the flag bits from the data buffer which
> "PQgetCopyData" returns, by using ntohs(). So I provided the new
> libpq function only for replication. That is, I didn't want to expose
> the low layer of network which libpq should handle.
I find that a completely unconvincing division of labor. Who is to say
that the LSN is the only part of the data that needs special treatment?
The very, very large practical problem with this is that if you decide
to change the behavior at any time, the only way to be sure that the WAL
receiver is using the right libpq version is to perform a soname major
version bump. The transformations done by libpq will essentially become
part of its ABI, and not a very visible part at that.
I am going to insist that no such logic be placed in libpq. From a
packager's standpoint that's insanity.
regards, tom lane
